Modern written characters reportedly developed from picture symbols. Written Chinese characters depict remnants of these symbols as they've become greatly modified over the years. A similar situation exists with Hebrew characters. Egyptian hieroglyphs, Celtic runes, and Mayan glyphs illustrate other examples of picture symbols. Even today, scholars are still trying to determine exactly what these symbols originally meant. The people who originated them are no longer living, and so we can't ask them? Perhaps this is the missing link.
   Partial knowledge of symbols, words, or sounds will not in every way suffice for the complete translation of language. Poetry gives an example of this. Fairy  tales, myths, and legends exibit even more examples. It helps to talk with the person who conceived  the words in the first place and to ask exactly what that person was using the words to convey. When not finding an opportunity to talk with the original author we might sometimes gain a better sense about that author by looking at their writings; in other words, their language. But even then, it's likely that we shall intrepret another persons words according to our own personal understanding.
   So where does language actually originate? Thinking of it as an object, language appears to exist at a distance, as if language were subject to time and space. In that case, language would amount to a subject / object relation, with identity (subject) existing in relation to time and space (object). The problem here involves popular understanding of the words "subject" and "object." There is a flaw in the way these two words are generally looked at. Both words are used to remark about the same fundamental relationship: duality! Both etymologically speak about the same basic idea: "put, or existing next to." An object is something put "next" to something else. A subject is something existing "next" to something else. Here we have the same basic idea described by two different words - a relationship between one thing and another. Setting these words apart as different is that which comes to hinge upon the word "next" - where next signifies the idea of pivotal duration like a see-saw. Well... let us take that same see-saw, anchor it in the sky, and then give it a big fast spin. Where has duality gone to now?
   Considering that objects exist at particular rates of vibration, how then can we deny them a language? Particular ignorance might be the answer. Like a television or radio set partial to a limited number of channels, the "subject" of language resembles a channel changer or radio tuner designed specifically to capture particular objective frequencies. Since relative vibrations are required for particular bodies to navigate a course through dimensions of time and space, the "subject" of language must follow through the most formidable waves of memory and navigate the most restless seas of mental observation. The "subject" of language must transcend  the confines of relative ignorance like a rocket breaking free from gravity. The "subject" of language must speak for all relationships, between all things, like the never-ending echo of cosmos, embracing every manner of chaos.
   Identity strives to define the undefinable in order to carry its effort into a cycle of existence maintained by the rate of activity required to manifest a dream. The previous sentence represents a simple yet concentrated scale of relative vibrations. If the vibrations (words) were not relative, then we might not be able to understand the language. It would seem then that objects appear relative to the particular senses that measure, or apprehend them. - E.M.

Last page update 05/14/10